"IGYG and the OODA Loop game mechanics comparison" Topic

Classic VLB was George Jeffriws horse and musket stuff. Whe actikns were bing fought corp division and army level so made some sense… as a concep if not application. The discussions on the yahoo group madenthis place seem like thebhomenof tranquility.

I think people want too much controll in games. Once you accept an OODA cycle one needs to accept that sub units will be operation through their own OODA cycle rather than doing what you the player thinks is best.

So from a game PoV can we find a way to allow that yet give the player somethjng to do innthebgame while not making subunits operate as connections to tbe commanders will.

That's why we ene dup with various activation system tkbcreate some friction and it works with conventional turns. Ive found that to feel artificial. Because as weve siad before, units are always active. The questions is…what are they doing.

All this works easier in computer games. As thebmachjnenremkves the need to run the mechanics of thebgame.

So I no longer recognise the problems outlined here. However I have only played DBM, SGII and DBM over the last 2 decades.

DBM and to a lesser extent SGII had a command and control system that precuded the players ability to move stuff anywhere at any time. Once battle joined the ability to control falls drematicaly disorder happens automatically and the protagonists need to spend there time keeping as much order as possible but in many cases the fight goes on player intervention, the pip system makes sure this happens.

It's effects are not obvious but it achieves the objective but at a price. It is optimised for 1 player a side, multi players games are possible but they rely on a level of player competence and splitting the board into sections, some of which may have no significalt action on one side, if they are tasked with doing nothing offensive but simply defending a flank the enemy may not want to dispute to any extent anyway.

Our own system does not have pips but it limits command and control with similar effects so that while unengaged rapid coherant movement is possible but once the units deploy and especially when engaged it becomes increasingly difficult to get it to move in a strategic manner.

That seems perfect but it does come at a price not everybody is prepared to pay or can even afford to play. It needs players that have learnt the system and are competent at planning. Rushing forward and throwiung die results in a very quick elimination, this would put many folk off as a starter. It also relies on a reasonable understanding of the period tactics, again without which it will be a long learning curve.

G6,
The questions is…what are they doing.

Good question. Here's how it works for me:
Units are always active and observing. That covers activation and spotting rules. When they react they can issue a move or shoot order, their decision not the dice.

Sometimes they can issue the order right away. Sometimes because of friction: suppression, poor crew, one or two man turret, over watching in the wrong direction and poor observation devices it can take awhile, generally 1-10 turns. This could be like failing an activation roll.

An order to shoot takes time to engage (maneuver or traverse to get your gun on the target), estimate the range and shoot. The timing is based on historical values, not a random die roll.

If you were over watching in the right direction and the enemy pops up in your gun sight your engagement time is minimal. If you have a slow turret traverse and the enemy pops up on your flank the enemy is most likely going to shoot first. In that case it may be better to issue a move order which takes minimal time. It's the players decision.

If an order to shoot takes 10 turns, during that time the crew is assumed to be performing their duties to execute the order, there is nothing else the player needs to do until the 10th turn.

However, since he is always observing if a more dangerous threat pops up he can react and change his current order. This would be like a turn interrupt rule.

After the 10 turns, if the crew is still alive, the player pauses the game and shoots. The "Loop" in OODA immediately goes back to Observing the results and issuing his next move or shoot order and how long it will take to execute. Players do it naturally. It's the players decision, not the dice or a structured game sequence. The "Loop" replaces an orders phase. Players units are normally under a move or shoot order. If not the default order is over watch.

Initiative and the parsing of the action is determined by the quickest units, player decisions, and tactics, not a die roll for initiative.

In combat things don't always go as planned and can go wrong at the worst time. There is no historical or statistical data that I found to simulate this. My solution was that when a player fires there is a 5% chance (I use a D20) of a SNAFU. This can happen 0-3 times in a game. The results are historical and only on rare occasions are things like equipment failure. Mostly the timing of the shot is increased. Players can make their own list or not use the rule.

I think you can look at an OODA design like a video simulation that plays for one second and stops allowing player input and then goes to the next second. So if you need to traverse your turret 60 degrees at 20 degrees/turn after three turns the gun will be pointing at the target.

If you've played any of the tank video games (I don't because I'm terrible at real time) an aiming circle appears over the target. The player can shoot on that turn (Snap Shot) but will most likely miss. If you don't shoot, each second the circle gets smaller reflecting the accuracy improving. When the circle stops is the maximum accuracy and you fire. The loader immediately starts reloading and the player determines if he needs to shoot at the same target, engage a new one or move (Shoot & Scoot). My game allows players to do the same thing. A Snap Shot has an increasing accuracy penalty based on how quickly they want to shot.

This is exactly how I explain my game to young players that have never played a war game before but played video games. In the picture I posted showing the two young players, the 15 year old had played tank video games and he was able to control 10 tanks.

What the player is doing is exactly what a crew would do – watch the action on the battlefield as it develops and be ready to pause the game to react or execute an order. You can't take a 10 minute break because your IGYG turn is over or you've run out of command chits, etc. It's a different experience than IGYG. Some like it, some don't. That's no surprise.

I've developed play aids and data cards tailored to each vehicle type and model players use to guide them through the sequence and show them all of their options and tactics and how to execute them. There is little to memorize. During a game, there are no rules to read.

Yes, I know how unrealistic the tank video games are and they don't use historic timing values.

Wolfhag

Again, thanks to Wolfhag for kicking off the discussion, it has been on my mind a lot lately, including waking up at 3am the other day to hit the latrine, then not being able to go back to sleep right away. Spend an hour making notes in my "crazed game designer notebook" instead.

Christmas is upon us, so I have to be brief.

I'm using the Canadian Wargames Group rules as an example because they have a few mechanics that make it easy to incorporate an OODA Loop turn sequence [no game turns] in their Horse & Musket rules.

Altho not presented in this way [not the designer's intent] this is what it boils down to:

1) you make a Designer Decision [DD] to rate the Brigade Commander / Staff by Quality, say 3/4/5.
2) You make a DD to rate the Battalion Commander / Staff by Quality the same way, 3/4/5.

The OODA Loop for each commander per player, would be a Brigadier and 3-6 subordinates, all rated as above.

There would be no Game Turn.

The 3/4/5 corresponds to Time Segments of say 3 minutes. Better CDRs execute in 3 minutes, average in 4 minutes, poor in 5 minutes.

So given a kickoff at the same time, Units will be executing orders in different time lengths.

They can also react to distant situations [over 12" away] by rolling a 3/4/5+ to change what their "order" is, representing the BN CDR taking initiative to face a threat. If he fails, on the next turn he gets a +1 to die roll, and so on. So a poor BN CDR needs a 5+, then a 4+, then a 3+ to pass etc.

If you get into "close combat" which is to say under 12" which would be effective [not point blank] musket range, you'd have to have both more activity as units and leaders cram more energy into a smaller time span to face more significant threats, and faster / better decisions as more leaders push harder in the face of imminent threats [the unknown company commander who chooses to refuse his flank company because it just obviously needs to be done].

Finally, you need to track fatigue in some way. While better troops may be able to act faster, their stamina / fatigue is an entirely different issue which has to do with food, clothing, shelter, rest, weather, etc.

There's a big difference between fighting Brandywine in lovely fall weather on Sep11, and Germantown Oct4, then Whitemarsh on Dec7. Best fatigue would be Brandywine, everyone would have less at Germantown, and everyone would hvae their lowest stamina available for the Dec 'near battle' at Whitemarsh.

I think the above could work. Tracking segments of 3 minutes would be possible with a record sheet like in Wooden Ships & Iron Men or The Complete Brigadier.

What I don't believe is possible is to get much better than a very general idea how long some activities take, mostly in the area of Formation Changes. They are easy to do on a parade field on a lovely day. They are a lot harder to do on uneven ground wet from an early morning rain, with black powder smoke obscuring vision. So for the sake of a clean game, I think the game designer just has to "make a resonable decision" unless the data is on hand.

But I think it is doable, and, matter of fact, I'm going to try it out!

Stalkey,
Looks as if you are on the right track. Good luck.

Finally, you need to track fatigue in some way. While better troops may be able to act faster, their stamina / fatigue is an entirely different issue which has to do with food, clothing, shelter, rest, weather, etc.

AS fatigue accumulates, the unit could drop a level in experience/training.

So how do you synchronize movement rate and rate of fire in a 3 minute turn? Will static units fire more than one volley in 3 minutes? Units could march 50-60 yards per minute or more.

Are you using movement in 3 minute increments? That means the unit could be shot at 6-9 times in a turn. Massed volley fire was effective out to about 200 yards.

So a unit advancing across 200 yards of ideal and flat terrain could do it in 3-4 minutes. So you could fire a massed aimed volley starting at 200 yards and 150 yards. Then a faster rate of 30 seconds with less aiming at 125, then at 100 yards 3 rapid fire volleys. That's just a best guess average estimate. So they could be fired at about 6 times during the advance.

I'm not an ACW guy so I does not know how historical that would be. Pickett's Charge Intensity: On the third day, during the climax known as Pickett's Charge, Union defenders along Cemetery Ridge fired continuous volleys for roughly 50 minutes.

If you just examine the advance rate and rate of fire rate with various historical risk-reward tactics for each side you can accurately recreate the advance into contact and close assault with a minimum of rules and attempt to get the realistic causality rate.

If using 3 minute turns a defender could order a specific rate of fire at the start of the turn. Based on the rate the game could be paused for the rifle volley results every 20 seconds to one minute. Faster rates of fire generate more smoke decreasing accuracy. Attackers have various defending and advancing firing tactics.

Each commanders messenger would be timed based on horse movement rate. I'd think Regimental Commanders attached to tjeir units could take 1-3 minutes to get a unit to start executing anew order.

In my ACW game I allowed the Union player to move his Regimental commander to the front of his unit and enable them to execute an order immediately. But he needed to take a causality check when doing so because of the increased danger. The result could be a KIA or a result that increased the morale and speed for an act of bravery.

Wolfhag

@Wolfhag
I think the issue is, do you allow players to make decisions for battalion commanders as a Brigade Commander?

I see the historical reality likely being:
"Advance your battalion forward to the ridge line, and clear it of enemy forces; 3rd Foot and 7th Foot will be at your left and right flanks; 28th Foot will follow in support / reserve."

I don't see them prescribing any particular method of battalion shooting. Given ammo limits and the unlikelyhood of resupply during an engagement, I'd say those parameters should be set for players. So ACW the history says that most engagements were still fought in the <150y range. Thus we see that having a long-range weapon doesn't translate to long range fire.

So I think it will depend on period. If both sides have the same rules of engagement, then it actually doesn't matter much; just multiply the likely number of volleys by their 2-5% casualty effect, etc.

I do think it will be difficult to match game effectiveness to historical effectiveness. But once that is done for a given period / campaign / theater / war, all one has to do is use small periods of timed activity instead of turns.

So if the game starts at 0900, and there's 3 Minutes per "time period" then there's 20 of them an hour.

I will have to playtest this, of course. But I can see it working. I just can't see being able to conclusively prove it is accurate, as there's no data equal to WWII test data on "how long does it take to fire a Sherman Tank under ideal conditions?"

Still, it will make for an interesting game. As long as one likes Naval gaming mechanics!

Stalkey,

I think the issue is, do you allow players to make decisions for battalion commanders as a Brigade Commander?

I guess that depends on you. If you are role-playing the Brigade Commander, are you in a different room getting reports that may or may not be correct and issuing orders to the players who are Battalion commanders, or at the table with a god's eye view?

Are your maneuver elements Battalions or Companies?
If you issue them an order or an objective, I guess they'd attempt to carry out their order.

When in doubt – RTFM I always say!
Manual: PDF link

The main ones would be Hasty vs Deliberate operations, Doctrinal Hierarchy, and then look at each chapter.

Do a keyword search on "posture" to see what actions a unit can change into.

I think that at the level you are playing, there are two main factors: The posture of the maneuver units and what type of order they are attempting to execute.

To execute certain orders, they need to be in specific postures, and it takes time to change. This forces the player to make advanced planning decisions. The Brigade Commander issues the order to Battalion and the maneuver Companies attempt to execute.

Specific posture/formation changes and order types will take a specific amount of time, so players need to coordinate with all units, which can take additional time.

"Advance your battalion forward to the ridge line, and clear it of enemy forces; 3rd Foot and 7th Foot will be at your left and right flanks; 28th Foot will follow in support/reserve."

I think what you are describing is "An Attack with Follow and Support" order. If that's the case, you, as the Brigade Commander, just have them do that.

I'd treat each maneuver Company as a unit and the Battalion as an HQ that is static most of the time. If the HQ moves, their ability command is diminished.

I'd have a turn chart/game clock in one-hour increments and a command chit for each maneuver Company. When you issue an order to a Company, place the command chit in a future one-hour box. Announce the turns one at a time. Players pause the game to execute their order when the time comes.

If your unit is forming up for an attack and is attacked by the enemy, they be at a disadvantage, so choose wisely. This may force you to perform a Hasty Attack rather than a Planned Assault because you don't have enough time.

Movement and rates depend on the unit posture. Ideally, you need to balance speed and security.

The defensive frontage for an infantry company is 500-800m. Attack frontages can be from 350-1000m, depending on the terrain.

For combat, I'd use one-hour turns with a chit draw result that would mainly be friction points, simulating decreasing performance.

I just can't see being able to conclusively prove it is accurate, as there's no data equal to WWII test data on "how long does it take to fire a Sherman Tank under ideal conditions?"

There is no way you or I could do that. At lower levels, it's easier; at higher levels, there are so many other things that can happen. Make it playable and fun.

Wolfhag

Just to stir the pot I think I have a playable IGYG/OODA composite work round. It's simple and easy so if you are beloved of getting every little bit of detail right it's not for you.

My rules are for a divisional Napoleonic game and I want the game to play out from the Div CO's perspective. What can the Player/Div CO see; essentially units moving or routing/dissipating into thin air.

So roughly how long does it take the player to change all his sub units orders

Resolve this by calculation of movement rate of couriers; this is the mean length of a bound

Set movement rates accordingly

Assume a normal distribution of actual bound lengths around the mean

Simplify this using the 2/6/2 principle

Start your bound by throwing for a short/mean/long bound with a d10 and adjust movement accordingly [I sue +/- 20%]

If you want to introduce personal command then the unit/small formation in contact with the player always gets a long bound, but all the other troops get a short bound, [or you can have 2 throws adding and subtracting form the score for near or distracted.] and you have to include risk to player.

I don't do this is as if the player is down his game is over and that's too arbitrary for me, but that's personal preference.

Mister H,
I used your last entry to make a ChatGPT prompt. Check your email.

Wolfhag

IGYG—paired with restrained reactions and command limits—better captures how real commanders fought: in pulses, with commitment, and with consequences you can't instantly undo.

Mark Wilson,
How is the design coming along? How are you doing movement?

Wolfhag